Israel Seriously Considering Attacking Iran Amid Post-Election Unrest

Discussion in 'News And Current Events' started by Unregistered, Jul 15, 2009.

  1. Defense official: Israel readying for attack on Iran - Haaretz - Israel News

    Why at this particular time? This would have an extremely negative impact on the Green Movement. Iranians would have no choice but to mobilize against the threat. and the country would instantly unite to defend any hostile action against the nation. It seems they only want Ahmadinejad to be in power.. I wonder why.
  2. Still could be a lot of posturing going on.... I'm not convinced Israel will attack.

    That said.... I'm also not convinced Israel really cares about the Green Movement. Mousavi has gone on record stating he is in favor on Iran's nuclear buildup. Whether it's Mousavi or Hitler, Iran will still be an arch enemy. Iran is in a vulnerable position right now... The opportunity to kick an arch enemy when they're down is probably enticing.

    Iran's unity would be much over-rated as well. The damage is done, the bridges are burned, the point of no return has been crossed. The majority of the Green movement wouldn't suddenly turn around and jump in the front lines or suddenly respect an illegitmate regime.

    Just my 2 cents.
  3. Hmm, I have been hearing about Israel attacking Iran for the last 3 or 4 years. MSM are telling that Israel will attack Iran soon, probably in the next couple of hours.
    All MSM including Haaretz.
    And then there are demonstrations against that attack which did not happen yet, and the talk-shows, and the articles in blogs and discussions on internet why it should be prevented and why Israel will not listen to "the people" (answer: because according to Iran it is an entity not a state). And it goes on and on and on for the last couple of years.
    Therefore I will believe it when I see it.
  4. While I cant exactly say why Israel would choose this time, the "negative impact" on the Green movement is not much of a concern. We all know that both sides in Iran would have been anti-Israel and continued with their nuclear program and support terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizballah. While it is good to see more of them killing each other it really makes no difference most Israelis I know.

    One possibility is since they are distracted by internal matters this would be a good opportunity. I dont know. But most people here are saying this just an exercise to flex muscles. Weve crossed through the Suez before but are publicing it more now
  5. well if the nuke facility is not in a populated area which i hope it is not.. I do not see how a hit on it could do anything but weaken the regime..

    i doubt israel is serious though myself..

    but seriously how could a hit on the nuke facility make the gren movement go backwards? it pretty much taks the regimes bully chip away in my opinion...ooner or later it will happen unless the leaders turn it over peacefully in my opinion..
  6. Voters Union Member

    I think this is well documented in history that real or perceived external threats to a country can have the effect of uniting the people of this country against this external threat. This can help them overcoming, or at least "putting on hold" the disputes they have among themselves.
  7. There is a reactor in Isfahan.

    Don't you think Moussavi would back the country in the face of an attack? Rafsanjani? Rezai? They are all part of the institution they will put their differences aside just to be able to take decisive actions quickly on the matter.

    Moussavi stands for the will of the people of Iran, this he has stated publicly. The people of Iran are not anti-semitic, Iran has always been a sanctuary for jews, for centuries and centuries. Cyrus the Great is also mentioned with praise in Jewish Scriptures. One of the most holy Jewish holiday is based on the story of Esther, the Jewish woman who married a Persian King and prevented a slaughter of Jews from happening.

    So don't tell me that Iran and Israel are arch-enemies, if the people of Iran get their will, Iran will be much more progressive on the international scene. Moussavi himself said he wants to improve the country's image.
  8. I really doubt they are going to attack. They are probably nervous about the regime attacking them, to try and cause a distraction, so they are watching and keeping a close eye on things. They know they are ahamad's favorite scapegoat.
  9. Visionary Member

    I'd say, just ignore Israel right now. Whatever their plans are, I doubt they have any intention of attacking, least of all now.
  10. JohnDoe Moderator


    It's not in Israel's interests to destabilize the situation even further. As a previous writer said Persians and Jews go back a long way, and when the interlopers have gone then Persians and Jews can again work together for the good of the whole region / world!
  11. I see you all are underestimateing potentialities of the iranian green revolution.
    Israel (better: the zionist entity) it doesn't.
    The green revolution, if it goes on by his own means, as I hope, could bring his effect from India and China to Morocco, via the shiism and the sunnism as well (do you remember 1979?)
    When i say if it goes on with his own means, i underline that many forces, internal (ie Rfsanjani) and external, are trying to hijack the revolution.
    Sometimes i'm scared seeing that even some of you, registered in this forum, ie hoping in a secular revolution, express a will to hijack the revolution toward your own western ideology.

    Anyway, about Israel: such a reload of the iranian revolution could reload even the muslim brothers in Egypt. Could you imagine how happy would the zionist be?
    Not much at all!
  12. I'm sure the basiji and ahamadinijad would love everyone in Iran to believe what you just said. Nothing like the fear of an outside scapegoat to get everyone to fall in line and forget about protesting the false regime, huh?
  13. Visionary Member

    That was hard to follow.
    In any case you don't come of as someone who wants the green revolution to succeed. :D
    Saying "western" this and "zionist" that.
    Those are some mighty suspicious keywords.
  14. a desert Member


    I hope Israel doesn't do such a stupid thing. It would jettison any hope for a successful revolution. The Sea of Green really can't afford to fight two enemies at once, and a person who launches an attack on your person on your soil is an enemy.
  15. Ray Murphy Member

    There's no way that Israel would mess things up at this stage - when Iranian citizens are showing the whole world what can be done - especially when outside help pours in for their good cause.
  16. a desert Member

    Eh. I know the average Israeli wouldn't, but I have no confidence in politicians of any stripe.
  17. Ray Murphy Member

    The power brokers in Israel know that they are safer if people all over the Middle East have a say in who is elected to power in their respective countries (where voting is permitted) so they, like the majority of people all over the Middle East will be cheering for the protestors.

    Israel would however be aware that a pre-emptive strike by Iran to prevent the demolition of their nuclear plants would stop the protestors in their tracks (for a time) so they are just standing by in case that happens.
  18. i imagine israel is in standby mode. the situation in iran could go either way. if it goes towards the protesters, all is well and the IDF will pull back. if it goes to the hardliners, all hope of negotiation is fucked so they may as well strike at the earliest possible convenience.

    all this does is raise the stakes is all.
  19. Israel's not that stupid. They're just bluffing (and we just "gave them the green light") in order to try to get somebody to force their hand. Occam's razor, baby.
  20. I have to recognize it was hard to follow what i said.
    I'll try to be more clear.
    I think that this "news" (not much new if you remember this is just made to stop the green movement.
    From where does it comes?
    a)First obvious (maybe too obvious) hypothesis: from the iranian government.
    b)But in stopping the revolution (maybe only in this) Israel could be agree with the iranian government. An iranian revolution could upset all the area, pushing up a reformist movement everywhere.
    Consider just the egyptian situation: how would Israel see a reformist movement there? What about the risk to send home a friendly president as Mubarak?
    This second was the hypothesis i was talkin about.
    The rest was just a warning: your opinion as western is something different from an iranian's opinion.
    Marg bar diktator
    Allahou akbar
  21. Srpska Member

    Think of this from the Israeli point of view. Rightly or wrongly, the Israeli security services genuinely believe Iran is a major danger - they're not just moving these warships around for shits and giggles. To Israel, the primary objective is the neutralisation of any military threat that may come from Iran; moral considerations about helping to change the regime come a distant second. Israel has always been hobbled by this - its short-term security concerns prevent it from laying the foundations of long-term goodwill.

    Now, this is most obvious to see with the Palestinians, but the same thing applies to Iran. If the cost of ensuring Iran does not enrich uranium is to cripple the Green movement and reunite Iranians against the West, then - and this is the crucial bit to understand - that is a price Israel is willing to pay. One air-strike, like they did with Iraq, would be enough. To us, it would look like a stupid squandering of relative goodwill, but to them, it is a surgical move in self-defence.

    All this Bush-style liberal interventionist crap is a bit silly, really. Not to mention grotesquely hypocritical. The idea that America should, or indeed can, step in and help the Green movement is ridiculous - as is the idea that the Israeli Government should, or indeed can, place the civil liberties of Iranians over the safety of its own citizens.

    But I digress.

    The bottom line, for me, is this: Don't rule out an Israeli strike simply on the grounds that it would upset the Iranian people. Rule it out, perhaps, on the grounds that it would upset Barack Obama, and Israel doesn't want to do that any more than it already has. But the "if we fight them they'll hate us" argument has not been a debate-winner in Israel these last sixty years.
  22. for once i agree with someone here
  23. If Israel wants to strike Iran, just to prove to the world that it means serious business, then it MUST do so before Moussavi and the Green Wave takes power. There is no way in the world any nation would agree to attacking a new government that stands for peace, freedom and greater cooperation with the international community (which could include compromise deals over its nuclear program).

    I'm afraid the Israelis are aware of this and may be planning to attack before the opposition gets any chance of winning.

    The Israeli argument that "National Security > Regional Stability" is an oxymoron. Attack Iran now and it will come back to you one way or another, Extremism will increase 10 folds. Israeli politicians are aware of that, nothing sanctions their treatment of Palestinians more than anti-Israeli ideology. That is why they are so fond of Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic in general, and why they don't want the reformists to win.
  24. Ray Murphy Member

    If Iran is not in the process of making nuclear weapons and it has been simply trying to scare people like Saddam did, then Mousavi and his political supporters will tell the truth and be open about it. If however nuclear armament is underway then anything could happen after today's prayer service.
  25. I think you hit the nail right on the head.
  26. Ray Murphy Member

    What - if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then its a case of "Let's duck - incoming Tomahawks"?
  27. Bullshit. Israel has nothing to fear from nations in the middle east becoming free. It is the fanatical little petty dictators that cause all the problems. Mousavi is not a threat to them, but ahamad is. They will get ready, and then wait to see what happens. If ahamad loosens his grip and freedom starts to take over Iran, then they will go home. If ahamad stomps down even harder on the protesters or tries to start a war to distract and unify them, then Israel will be ready for him.

    The green movement is not an extremist movement. It is not going to encourage extremism. It is against extremism. If anything, it will encourage freedom elsewhere, and fighting extremism. Israelis aren't stupid. They know that. And neither are the Iranians you are trying to scare. They also know that what you say above is a crock of shit.

    But if I was ahamed, I would be scared. Any attempts by him to start a war just to distract people away from the protests will lead to his regime being crushed, and if he cracks down to harder on the protesters and ruins any future hope for peace, he will also be crushed. He looses no matter how you play it. I bet he can't sleep at night, worrying about it. I bet he looses no sleep over all the people he has had beaten, raped and murdered, though.
  28. Of course, Israel is peace loving hippie nation. Of course, they stand to lose nothing by the rest of middle east becoming free from dictators (pro-Israeli like Mubarak, both Abdullahs, Abbas, etc & anti-Israel like Ahmedinejad and Khamenei). Of course, the democratically elected people of Egypt, Jordan, Saudia, etc will also love Israel and not care about the Palestinians or justice. Of course, Israel is not worried about the prospect of losing $6 billion dollars of funding every years from the US which is based on "national security threats".
  29. Ray Murphy Member

    I've read this carefully twice and agree with every word.
  30. Iraq was trying to scare Iran, specifically, with their lies and bluffs about WMD, to keep them from attacking. Who would ahamadinijad be trying to scare? No one was making any threats to attack the country before he started talking about nukes. There were no dangers to the country except from Iraq, and that threat is gone. So what I am getting at, is why would he bluff about it?
  31. The only thing they have to loose from a free middle east is having to worry about getting attacked all the time. That trumps everything else.

    But it is hard for someone with a dictatorial, fanatical mindset to understand that way of thinking, I guess. Just like a thief sees a thief everywhere, a tyrant sees tyrants everywhere.
  32. Ray Murphy Member

    I don't know a lot about Middle East politics, but what about the possibility of goading Israel into conventional warfare? Is Iran up to it?
  33. You do know there is a reason that Israel supports dictatorships of Mubarak, and both Abdullahs, right?

    What stance do you think a democratically elected government (that represents the peoples will) of Egypt, Saudia, and Jordan will take towards Israel?
  34. They dont have joining borders, not immediately joining water paths.

    Egypt may allow them to pass now, but they would face too much internal pressure if actual war was engaged to allow Israel use of Suez.
  35. Let me guess... because they do not threaten them all the time and attack them?

    This is what Israel cares about. Living in peace, in their own little plot of land, and being left alone. You obviously do not get that. All that propaganda shoved down your throat about how evil they are, with their spy squirrels and all that shit, has tainted your thinking, and you do not understand. The number one thing to them when it comes to their neighbors is whether they want to kill them or not, and whether they are capable. Nothing else.

    Free countries are less war-like, and more reasonable. Fanatical, dictatorial countries tend to go the other way. I agree that Mubarak and the Abdullahs do not rule free countries, but they do rule countries that do not attack or threaten to attack Israel all the time, so Israel stays out of their affairs. Even if they did want to help the people of those countries be free, that help hardly would be appreciated or welcomed, so there is not much more they can do in regards to them, beyond just leaving them alone. But I'm sure you want to criticize them no matter what they do. Leave a country alone, they are bad. Attack a country, they are bad. Never mind the reasons. Never mind the threat the other country poses to Israel's existence.

    If a country poses no threat to the existence of Israel, they don't mess with that country. You just don't seem to get that. A free Iran does not pose a threat to them. An Iran ran by the fanatics that run it now, do. Which goes back to the original argument. Israel is watching, and if freedom wins they will just go back home and forget about Iran. If the petty dictatorship remains, they will probably do something, and they are fully capable of it.

    That is the message all the pundits are talking about. Don't twist it into propaganda fodder for ahamad-the-fag. No one but his die-hard supporters are dumb enough to fall for it.
  36. Egypt likes the regime in Iran even less than Israel does. They find terrorists in the Suez.
  37. I know very little about the situation, but it's self-evident that Israel will at the very least be concerned about the prospect of talks, given that they're projecting Iran being capable of producing fissile material inside 6-12 months.

    They believe - rightly or wrongly - that a nuclear armed Iran poses a clear and present danger to their country, and with the short potential production time frame, must fear that talks could create a "safe window" for Iran, during which they'll become closer to the goal, whilst leaving the option of an Israeli attack in a politically untenable no-mans-land. A leader perceived to be more moderate than Ahmadinejad, would only compound the issue.
  38. a)Israel is a free country - with his illegal nuclear weaponry and his mass crime against palestinians - and only wants freedom for every other country.

    b) Israel is ran by fanatics and it poses a threat to Iran and to the freedom of every middle-east country (and to the world).

    Israel is not a free country.
    Then israel is war-like.
    Israel is ran
  39. Ray Murphy Member

    So if Israel WAS nuked, where would the remaining population go to live -- in an un-nuked part of Iran?

    Any ideas anyone?
  40. I never said Israel wanted freedom for every other country. I said Israel feels no threat from a free Iran, and that what is important to them is if a country threatens them or not.

    Your other crap is just more of the ayatollah's propaganda bullshit. I guess you think America's nuclear weapons are illegal, too?

    If you haven't noticed, the factor that determines whether a country gets harassed over having weapons is the probability that they will use them. Again, right over your dictatorship-loving head.

    As for Israel being free, if you don't want to kill them, you are incredibly free there. If you express your desire to kill them all the time, not so free. Again, a fine point that goes over your head.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins